The case said nothing about AGW itself, just that the plaintiff couldnāt prove direct harm from the defendant to the plaintiff...which is true. It noted...
The question is therefore whether or not plaintiffsā alleged harm ā namely, the effects of global warming-induced sea level rise ā would have occurred even absent each defendantās respective California-related activities. It is manifest that global warming would have continued in the absence of all California-related activities of defendants. Plaintiffs have therefore failed to adequately link each defendantsā alleged California activities to plaintiffsā harm.
It says nothing about being able to examine the evidence nor does it cast doubt on AGW itself, in fact it affirms it. In other words, AGW is larger than any one defendants activities. Not sure this is worth the circle jerk.
The defendants could not cross examine the plaintiff's claims. The defendants showed the plaintiff failed in actual evidence and scientific facts to be unable to prove their case.
As accusers they failed to make a credible case based on
empirical fact and science that could be cross examined.
What do you call someone who has no facts and files a case?
Epic FAIL...
Where does the article state that?
Will this from the Judge help?
"The question is therefore whether or not plaintiffsā alleged harm ā namely, the effects of global warming-induced sea level rise ā would have occurred even absent each defendantās respective California-related activities. It is manifest that global warming would have continued in the absence of all California-related activities of defendants. Plaintiffs have therefore failed to adequately link each defendantsā alleged California activities to plaintiffsā harm.
As earlier orders have pointed out, plaintiffsā nuisance claims depend on a global complex of geophysical cause and effect involving all nations of the planet. Ocean rise, as far as plaintiffs contend, would have occurred even without regard to each defendantās California contacts.
Lacking, however, is a causal chain sufficiently connecting plaintiffsā harm and defendantsā California activities.
Finally, plaintiffs advocate for a less stringent standard of ābut forā causation in light of the liability rules underlying public nuisance claims. Such an argument has been rejected by our court of appeals, which has instructed that āliability is not to be conflated with amenability to suit in a particular forum.ā
For the same reasons discussed above, however, plaintiffs do not satisfy this third requirement. Even taking plaintiffsā allegations as true, they have failed to show that BP or Royal Dutch Shellās national conduct was a ābut forā cause of their harm.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, defendantsā motions to dismiss pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(2) are GRANTED."
